That the difference between the Government and Speaker of the lower house got to the point of it having been referred to the High Council for legislative elaboration and explanation, means that the static between the two authorities has reached a critical stage.

The static —the disagreement, between the two primacies are not new; the tension is obvious, and it manifests in their behaviours under the dome, and sometimes in their statements, but most of all it intensifies behind closed doors. And although many influential parties pulled their weights to contain it, it was not possible; for when it got to decisive turning points like the election bill for example, the lower house premieres avoided any compromises with the government, striking what could be referred to as a truce that soon deteriorated the moment the bill was passed.

The highlights of the disagreement this time revolved around employment authorities of the Speaker. And the High Council’s decision included in their clarification the house of Senates as well, granting the all employment authorities to the Prime Ministry.

The decision angered the House of Representatives, and maybe the senates. But all in all, it is no more than merely the tip of iceberg of accumulated disagreements between the two, notably expressed by the representative speaker and his office in many public occasions, and in behaviours that provoked the Government under the dome, as well as strikes above and below the belt in Parliament sessions turned into podiums to criticise and attack the Government.

In response, intelligently and smartly, the representative primacy is punished by exclusion from the tighter decision circles. And as a result, the legislative authority finds itself between the anvil of excommunication and the hammer of compliance.

For what? Looking at this recent confliction dominating the public political scene, one would say: stop the idiocy! The country undergoes a historic transformation, faces up to its most dangerous challenges so far, and we in the decision hubs are fighting over something as marginal as employment!

Both the statement and one who would states it are right to do so; this government was born out of the wombs of the current formation of parliament, was passed by the majority —the speaker’s own bloc, and was once considered a dawning change towards parliamentary governance. And I wish this disagreement is taking place over agendas, policies, or legislation, but no; this is happening over mere administrative detail that can be reconciled with some acts of good will.

On the other hand, the government made a mistake taking this to the High Council. They should have put the effort into reconciling with Representative Speaker to fix it instead of escalating the situation. Now, one might say: referring to the constitutional authority is the best and most civil method to address arguments. That is true when it comes to public issues or legislations, not when it boils down to old administrative issues and disagreements between the two, especially when they could have been solved within the cooperative and integrated context and framework of the two authorities.

There are piles and piles of issues and public files on their desks, and it is not right by the house of representatives to come across as an authority struggling with the Government over administrative employments that will always entail favourism and corruption, while concerns of poverty, unemployment, and challenging economic conditions press on society as a whole.

Excuse us; but this is a luxury that is not afforded, especially now that we have come so close to the final stages of the current terms for both authorities.